I just started reading the document linked to in his article, and I must say, I’m annoyed with it. Not only does it have a multitude of errors, it repeats errors from his earlier work which have apparently never received much attention.

Why hasn’t anyone bothered to respond John Mashey’s report in any meaningful way? He’s apparently getting enough publicity to warrant it, and his work is easy to dismantle. Heck, I’m confident even I could do it!

I’m not a blogger, so I have no name to speak of (I have no particular credentials either) nor place to host responses to John Mashey’s nonsense. If not for that, I’d do it myself.

Retraction of Wegman’s article is exactly parallel to the Wizard of Oz saying: “pay no attention to that man behind the screen”. The content of the Wegman Report remains inviolate. The “hockey stick” is phony and we all know that. DC (that scurrilous lowlife) has succeeded in diverting attention from the widespread propagation of false climate data by the warmists, to silly and trivial worries about trumped-up plagiarism. The more we pay attention to plagiarism, the more we play into the hands of DC (that scurrilous lowlife). Let’s focus on the hockey stick and forget about plagiarism.

]]>
By: Barry https://climateaudit.org/2010/10/20/bradley-copies-fritts-2/#comment-275271
Thu, 19 May 2011 12:42:11 +0000http://climateaudit.org/?p=12206#comment-275271Any chance we could bring this to court now that the Wegman article has been retracted? It only seems fair that Bradley should suffer the same consequences. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
]]>
By: Climate Audit https://climateaudit.org/2010/10/20/bradley-copies-fritts-2/#comment-252200
Fri, 14 Jan 2011 15:20:03 +0000http://climateaudit.org/?p=12206#comment-252200[…] just lifted verbatim from my book and placed in the Wegman Report”. See CA discussion e.g. here here – posts which included criticism of the Wegman Report in respect to its citation of Bradley, […]
]]>
By: Donald Rapp https://climateaudit.org/2010/10/20/bradley-copies-fritts-2/#comment-251104
Thu, 30 Dec 2010 23:37:44 +0000http://climateaudit.org/?p=12206#comment-251104The material at issue that Wegman used in his report, whether originally published by Fritts, Bradley or others, was basic material to provide the underlying background for the reader, prior to going into the details and specifics of MBH’s use of PCA to generate the “hockey stick” model of historical earth temperatures. This is material that was neither new, nor original at the time of Wegman’s report, and it is quite clear to anyone with the least bit of knowledge that Wegman was reporting common knowledge in the field to prepare the reader for his review of the MBH procedure. Yes, it is true that Wegman could have, and should have explicitly stated the sources more abundantly, but Wegman did not profit from such omission, and there was nothing for him to gain by it. In my mind, plagiarism requires a deliberate usurping of other peoples’ original material for the purpose of personal gain. If Wegman had claimed that he invented the MBH procedure leading to a hockey stick, which was the real “meat” of the Wegman Report, that would have been plagiarism. But Wegman clearly was reviewing the MBH procedure with attribution, and he only supplied the background material to help the reader understand the context. There was never an implication that he (Wegman) had invented that background material. Yes, he should have been more explicit. But no, it was not plagiarism. In a similar way, Bradley may have been using Fritts’ material as background introductory material. I have not read their books so I don’t know if that is so. But if it is, Bradley may also have committed merely an inadvertency. In summary, I don’t see how there can be plagiarism if the accused had nothing to gain. Meanwhile, DC (that scurrilous lowlife) has succeeded in getting a lot of attention shoved off from the hockey stick to wild charges of plagiarism. The recent review by McShane and Wyner provides additional support for Wegman and further demonstrates the fallacies of the hockey stick.
]]>
By: Bisarr uthängning av en som gav skeptiker rätt | The Climate Scam https://climateaudit.org/2010/10/20/bradley-copies-fritts-2/#comment-245829
Tue, 23 Nov 2010 23:11:06 +0000http://climateaudit.org/?p=12206#comment-245829[…] har plagierat texter från en ännu tidigare bok. Och då utan att ens lämnat referenser. Se här, här och […]
]]>
By: Crispin in Waterloo https://climateaudit.org/2010/10/20/bradley-copies-fritts-2/#comment-244269
Tue, 26 Oct 2010 15:19:53 +0000http://climateaudit.org/?p=12206#comment-244269In reply to Rob.

Oh, wait. Wegman cites Bradley all over the place. So Rob, what exactly is the root of your complaint about attribution? Using the Bradley Standard for citation, Wegman is more than compliant. Using the Academic Textbook Standard, Bradley isn’t, on the very same texts. He can’t go to court unless he has clean hands.

Will you join Steve in condemning Bradley’s copy-work for giving DC (and no doubt others) the impression it is ‘seminal’? The book, after all, continues to speak for itself. It is not only about who cited whom, It is also about the consequences.
Steve: I didn’t “condemn” Bradley’s copying; I reported it. As I observed, at his point, I am insufficiently familiar with standards in the field to express an opinion on Bradley’s conduct. However, it does seem to me that standards in the field are relevant to an assessment of whether Wegman’s use of Bradley’s text rises to misconduct, as Bradley alleged.

That’s not what I understood. Steve McI is pointing out that Bradley also uses unattributed text from previous authors, therefore it seems a commonplace occurrence in the field, therefore Bradley has no real complaint.

Steve: your legal terminology seems questionable to me. If unattributed text is commonplace in the field, that may be a defence for Wegman against a misconduct allegation, but a lack of “clean hands” might not bar Bradley making a complaint. “Clean hands” are probably more relevant in a civil action.